Hi Dhruv, Thanks again for your review! In the -11 version of the draft [1] we have expanded the LISP acronym on first use, according to your good suggestion.
Please kindly let us know any comment you might have in the new version. Thanks! Alberto [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-11 From: Alberto Rodriguez-Natal (natal) <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:49 PM To: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10 Hi Dhruv, Thanks for your review! You’re bringing good points. As per your comment on padding, it’s a good question but I cannot recall right now any padding requirement in other LISP docs. A a quick search for ‘padding' in rfc6833bis and RFC8060 shows not results. Maybe someone else on the list can comment on padding requirements in LISP (if any)? Also, good point on expanding LISP on first use, we’ll make sure to do so in the revised draft. Thanks! Alberto From: Dhruv Dhody via Datatracker <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:03 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf-10 Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody Review result: Has Issues I was assigned the reviewer today. I noticed that the IESG ballot is done and the document is approved, I am not sure how valuable this review would be but anyways... Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-lisp-vendor-lcaf Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody Review Date: 2022-04-26 IETF LC End Date: Over Intended Status: Experimental Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: - The document is simple, clear and straightforward. Major Issues: - No major issues found. Minor Issues: - Is there any padding requirement that should be mentioned for the Internal format in alignment with the rest of LISP? - Consider if adding an example in the appendix would be useful for a casual reader. Nits: - LISP does not have a * next to it at https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt and thus should be expanded on first use! Thanks! Dhruv
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
